The Cinematic Chicken And Egg
The last few years have seen some interesting/appalling changes in the way our society perceives the medium and art of motion pictures. There is an increasing belief that cinema has a major influence in shaping the minds of the consumers (case chicken). This strong belief has left the movie-making industry absolutely confused. But there is also a part of the community that opposes this belief, stating that a movie’s stance on a lot of social issues is influenced by the state of the society at the time of making (case egg). This article is an attempt to peek into both sides of the argument and eke out any possible solutions.
On one hand, more and more filmmakers have found amazing ways of narrating stories through the eyes of the oppressed, cornered and the discriminated with skin-crawlingly realistic and gruesome depiction of their everyday lives. On the other hand, we see reboots of classics with leads chosen to represent different communities (Planes, Trains and Automobiles remake with Will Smith and Kevin Hart) or a change in gender (Men In Black with a female lead or talks of launching “Jess Wick”, a spinoff of the John Wick movie series). Academy Awards has also introduced “representation and inclusion standards” for eligibility. Two questions need to be asked — where do we draw the line between genuinely including people from different backgrounds and being (possibly unintentionally) patronizing in the process? Is it the increasing awareness in society that has forced these changes to the industry or is cinema responsible for increasing said awareness?
The recent outburst of ‘cancel culture’ has provoked a very sensitive outlook of media and life as such. The insistence of this movement seems to be that creators and influential figures need to learn to not offend every community’s sentiments whenever they produce content. We’ve already had a lot of questions but here’s one more — what needs to be curbed — offensiveness or toxicity?
The number of gangrapes that India has seen just in the last month is unfathomable. The question of why has a number of answers — ranging from religion and caste based differences inducing the act to establish dominance to just sheer objectification of women. In this article, let us consider the cases of abuse that come from the latter end of the spectrum of reasons mentioned above. What could be a validating factor for a man to think it is okay to smother a woman to comply to his urges, let alone smother her with his friends or in a group? (Again, men go through abuse as well, but the case in point is gender-specific here.)
CASE CHICKEN — THE “ITEM” DANCE/SONG/NUMBER
A very common term, at least in India, isn’t it? The ITEM dance. This is usually a song filled with sexual innuendos, double entendres backed by functional hard beats which is picturized in either of the two ways — one woman dancing in very limited clothing surrounded by gazillion men gawking at her, or several women dancing in very limited clothing surrounded by gazillion men gawking at them. And by gawking, I mean “gawking at the very least”. What does “item” mean? Well, item is defined as an object which is how the dancing lady/ladies is/are defined. We’re too lazy to even be subtle about the objectification!
The more worrisome part about these songs is that the “noble” lead is usually the one leading the dance with the lady/ladies. The same noble lead who talks at length about being morally right and having a conscience throughout the movie, takes a 4–5 minute break from “righteousness” to vent his true patriarchal and carnal intentions.
Bollywood filmmakers in the late 1930’s took the concept of cabaret dancing and turned it into something it was not — a character description of the femme fatale. By the 1960’s, the “item” number (the name had come into effect) was used more as a party song — sometimes even the lead actress would be the feature. And ever since, it has remained the same and we continue to see such songs feature regularly.
Is this an accurate representation of society? Would a “noble” man (or at least however it is defined in cinema) in real life be okay, leave alone participate, with such absolute tearing down of another human being in front of a huge crowd for pleasure? If the answer to either of the questions is leaning towards yes in your mind — congratulations, it is a pleasure to let you know that you desperately need help (desperate, for the betterment of everyone around you).
In a way, there is a fair chance that these songs are somewhat responsible for people to think it is okay to subjugate women and to make her feel like an object among a group of men. The fact that the “righteous”, the otherwise moral policing people, are shown to objectify women with no visible consequence provides enough validation that the desperate lowlife seeks to commit such heinous crimes.
CASE EGG — The Vigilante/Anti-Establishment
Most film industries often latch on to a trend in an attempt to piggyback on a colossal hit by recycling the same theme movie after movie. Through the ’90s and ’00s, Tamil cinema (and even Bollywood) went through a phase of producing vigilante movies left and right. Every fourth movie was an action vigilante “thriller” (well, that is not true — every third movie was an action vigilante “thriller”).
And in most of the fads that Tamil cinema industry wrapped itself in, this was probably the most successful one. But why this and not say, the horror comedy phase of the mid 2010s? In any country, under any government or monarchy, there are always problems that leave the common people disgruntled. These vigilante films take that essence and show people a modification of the existing world where these problems are addressed or at the very least, acknowledged. These filmmakers often take on actual news and revamp it to suitably fit into a 120–150 minute feature. Do these films ultimately have an effect on society? Or does the society affect what the filmmakers choose as their subject?
Once again, in Tamil cinema, the second most successful “trend” and the one that is still in effect is “Anti-establishment” cinema. Started triumphantly by Ram’s “Kattradhu Tamizh” and Pa. Ranjith’s “Madras”, the general theme is always set around horrific, painful and ongoing injustice meted out by a dominant group in current society. These films do create a space for the oppressed and the progressive minds to express their disappointment and their solutions for these issues. Sure, these films increase awareness. And sure, this new-age genre has brought in a positive change in people — but sadly, only a minority. But to be honest, it is the increasing uproar in society as such, that has boiled over in art form in the first place. Which brings us to the question — does cinema, on its own, necessarily move an entire society’s attitude? Or is it the other way around?
Ultimately, it all boils down to one single point —
Humans have always been inclined to toxicity. Right from the legendary forbidden apple to the million vices that exist today, the attraction towards them continues to drive human society as much as productivity and progress towards a better life. At times, access to these vices are a part of said “better life”. Which is why social media, which was once considered a pristine boon, a global revolution and one that would only influence the world for good, is currently seeing people flee from it to save themselves.
Also, if we state that showing people smoking in a film influences millions to take up smoking, then the same characters reading out disclaimers about the repercussions of smoking should influence at least thousands to quit, right?
So what the cancel culture and both the cases (the cinematic chicken and egg) need to focus on is the toxicity of the content being produced from either sides.
Yes, one can easily counter this statement with the point — what’s toxic to one is not for another, so it is hard to put a holistic line that the world has to follow. This point has a counter-positive that is true too — what is right for one is not for another.
So instead of following the bloody path of cancel culture and calling for art to be cancelled, it is wiser in the long run to disagree and loudly voice your displeasure about projects that conflict with your ideals. By forcing a group of artists to shut down on their projects, one utilizes their freedom of expression to curb another’s.
There is no point chasing the chicken and egg problem because it is mostly based on subjective logic (at least for a common man such as myself). But what we do need to focus on is to disagree with toxicity transferring either way.
Well, cinema is an absolute consumer industry. If we disapprove enough with obnoxious content, the industry has to listen. And well, we are society. If we disapprove toxicity with a strong voice, the people around us will have to lend their ears at the very least. But being trigger happy and calling for cancellation/ban of distasteful content, is toxic too.
Let’s pick our battles, be it reel or real life.
